Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citybound


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. General consensus is that it is too soon to have an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Citybound

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article for a game that is in the pre-alpha stage is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON the sources do not prove notability. 13 of the 21 sources are affiliated and are mostly the developers own blog or youtube videos. 4 do not mention the subject, 4 are from 2014 and smack of churnalism et rehash of a press release. This looks like an attempt by someone linked to the developer to promote his game. The article was moved to draft space and was then moved to the mainspace by the creator without having been submitted for review. Domdeparis (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  16:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are many reliable sources that come up. Gamasutra PCGamer RockPaper Shotgun Kotaku Your deletion argument accuses WP:RUBBISH, which is a surmountable problem, and WP:ASSERTN, an incorrect argument.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Those sources are all from 2014 and talk about the project none of them are reviews of the game itself which is understandable as according to the article it is in its pre-alpha phase. PC Gamer and Kotaku are simply quoting Gamasutra and the developer's blog (possible churnalism or simply rehashing) and Rock Paper Shotgun says he is skeptical that the game will ever come off and, I quote "the other big concern is that this project could fizzle out before it ever really picks up steam,"...3 years down the line there are no new stories about this project apart from the developers blog and this wikipedia page...I'm afraid I don't call that notable. No-one has reviewed any version of the game itself. We are judging notability of a game and not a project. If I contact a few gaming magazines saying that i am going to build a game that will outdo the Number 1 (which I have no intention of doing) and it gets reported that I am making that claim is my imaginary game notable enough for an article? There are no reliable independent sources to prove that this Citybound project has got past the stage of saying "this is what I plan". Is this a basis for notability and your keep !vote? have you found any other sources because I am still far from convinced? Domdeparis (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also add that WP:NVG in a nutshell says " A video game release is appropriate for a stand-alone article if it has been the subject of significant commentary in multiple published sources which are independent of the video game developer." There are 2 words that don't apply here, "release" and "significant"...the game hasn't been released and signifiant commentary is defined as "Significant commentary should report more than basic game data (such as its title, platform, publisher, and creative staff). Commentary should be critical and detailed." These articles are far from doing that. Domdeparis (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Those sources are all from 2014 and talk about the project none of them are reviews of the game itself" Umm... by "project" do you mean the development of the game? A game doesn't need to be finished to have an article, which seems to be what you're insinuating. It doesn't even need to be finished ever, as long as it was notable while in development. If it was talking about an external project like a Kickstarter, that's a different story, but they are literally just mentioning a game in development.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Beware WP:SUSTAINED. Your line of argument has tripped me up before. In general, we should have something more than announcement coverage before an article is created. What ideally seals the notability is the reviews, and we don't have any (though from the official website it looks like the game will soon be at a point where we might be seeing previews). --Izno (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Zxcvbnm We only have the developers blog as proof that the game is in development. He sent some graphics to a few magazines with some PR stuff. It got talked about 3 years ago and then nothing. I can't get my head around how you think this is notable. I quoted the NVG essay and you just seem to have zapped that. I am far from being an expert on video games but there must be literally thousands of projects that never see the light of day. The developer made some statement that creates a buzz but if you read the comments on the different sources no-one thinks that this guy is capable of doing what he says he will do. And 3 years down the line there is nothing more being said about it from secondary sources...unless you've found some. The sources on the page and the ones you found do not support notability... it's as simple as that. This story has gone to bed and noone is interested in it. Maybe when he does release a version that reviewers can test then it will become notable but as of now it just ain't! Domdeparis (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've nuked the primary sourcing, which is indeed trash. I'll take a look at this later this weekend to see if I've got a !vote on this. --Izno (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So, most of the sources available to us are from spring 2014: RPS 1, RPS 2, RPS 3, Gamasutra, PCGamer, VG247, USGamer, Kotaku; while one is from fall 2014: RPS 4. My inclination, since we haven't really seen coverage since, is to add a paragraph or so to SimCity (2013 video game), since this project appears to have been started as direct "SimCity 2013" remedy. Merge. This can-or-should be WP:SPLIT from there at a later date, if more coverage is garnered. --Izno (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I reread the 2014 autumn article and at the end it says an alpha version was planned for later that month and the WP article claims it's at the pre alpha stage...3 years later...and this article is the very latest independent source about this game...I'm sorry but this can't be worthy of an encyclopedia article not by any stretch of the imagination. Domdeparis (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the bold merge in my comment? --Izno (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete You can delete this article if you wish, I originally created this article as I had been watching this game develop and it seemed it was on the verge of picking up momentum. You can delete this article as the game has been stalled (again) and development has ground to a halt. BSOleader (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The other arguments and that of the creator of the article have convinced me that it's still non-notable due to WP:SUSTAINED.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think a full delete is necessary; a sentence or three in the 2013 SimCity article will probably suffice. --Izno (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note User:BSOleader has cut'n'pasted a copy of the article to User:BSOleader/sandbox. I have undone that as a license violation (loses attribution of who wrote what), as usual for WP:CUTPASTE situations. If that user wishes to have the article revived (with history!) to userspace for ongoing development after deletion via AFD, he is welcome to request it. However, user has quit wikipedia, and draftspace is not an indefinite holding pen for deleted content. DMacks (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough to circumvent TOOSOON. L3X1 (distænt write)  01:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.